The Chronicle of Higher Education online: We’re Not a Hierarchy, We’re an Ecosystem.
We’re Not a Hierarchy, We’re an Ecosystem – Run Your Campus – The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Throughout my undergraduate and graduate career, I’ve been privy to a sense of inferiority that my education is not as “good” as what I may have gotten from a more prestigious institution or program.
As an academic librarian, I have seen this phenomenon be hushed, glossed over, dismissed, and, well, taboo’ed among professional circles. Only when I am around trusted friends-colleagues does this get any frank voicing and discussion.
As a parent, I’m caught up in seeing that my children do better than I do. This includes attending “better” schools and programs than I did.
I am fully aware of the strong opposing forces in my value system–how my tendencies toward Asian filial piety often conflict with my value for self-actualization, self-determination, and individual agency. There’s nothing quite like parenthood and child-rearing to bring such contradictions in sharp relief.
And since I don’t do mental compartmentalization all that well, and thought puzzles and cognitive dissonance trigger my obsessive tendencies, I am more than a bit fascinated by the hierarchies of perceptions of prestige among academic programs. Shopping for a higher ed school does bring out questions of fit between the individual and institution, sure. But the connection of the institution to a favorable outcome in the job market (i.e., to become gainfully employed), especially in academia, is something I don’t see very often.
Suffice to say, these sorts of prestige rankings of seemingly neutral things, like schools and programs, do develop into rankings of people. I often feel like I have to apologize for attending and graduating from the state-run schools that I did. I’ve also had been in the position of being told that, maybe, I shouldn’t have tried to attend a more prestigious academic graduate program because I am and my previous experiences are just…not good enough. Then there’s this strange train of thought that I find chafing–getting a tenure-track position proves a person’s better quality/better worth/better whathaveyou. I always raise my eyebrow to this and people who say this sort of thing out loud. If we accept that the game is rigged, that certain outlooks and behaviors are valued above others, and that structural and institutional discrimination exists, why, then, the self-congratulations of this ilk? It smacks of ignorance and lack of awareness. And aren’t we supposed to expect more, expect better from academics? Smh.
So, is there a link? If there is one, I think it has to do with our too-human tendency to hierarchically rank things and people. But is there more to this than a garden-variety human tendency? Good question.
Tenure seems to be a job security mechanism; once it’s reached, there’s no incentive to perform well at your job. Iow, the point at which you get tenure is the peak; while you can continue to perform well, and even excel, you can also let go and just get by with mediocre or worse performance.
And the links. Does there exist a study that shows that people who attended more prestigious universities get better jobs? If Harvard is #1, then clearly not everyone who attended Harvard can work at Harvard, and therefore, are not working at the #1 university. Does that make them not as good as those who do work at Harvard? Or were there other factors at play — privilege, race, location, bribes, or some other corrupting influence?
Expanding the discussion to include non-academic jobs, a lot of the same questions apply — is there a link between the ranking of the university attended and the job acquired after getting a degree? How many other factors influence who gets the better job? Who with a straight face could stand up and say they’re better than everyone else who ever applied for the job they got?
Pingback: This Town Needs a Better Class of Racist – Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic | MiscEtcetera v2